It seems to me that there is a clear case for there being both hazardous and non-hazardous examples of man_made=mineshaft. The question is how to tag the ones that are hazardous.
I think the right answer is simply man_made=mineshaft + hazard=yes. If we were to approve hazard=open_mineshaft, you create ambiguity as to whether a mappers could tag ONLY hazard=open_mineshaft and omit the man_made=mineshaft, which is not desirable. The hazard=yes tag is intended to mark features that are already properly described by other tagging, but indicate that it is also hazardous. On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 8:38 AM ael via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 04:01:09PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:41 PM ael via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:11:25AM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > > > I am not opposed to including unsigned hazards > > > > > > There are a surprising number of abandoned open mineshafts in the far > > > West of England which are a hazard, if not an extreme hazard. Not all > > > of these are signed or fenced. You might have noticed some of them > when you > > > trawled through the existing usage. > > > > > > It would be absurd to require such cases to be "signed": those are the > > > least hazardous by virtual of the signage. > > > > Ok, I'm convinced that unsigned hazards are acceptable to be signed! > > > > In the case of open mineshafts, there is already an approved tag > > man_made=mineshaft with 10,000 usage (and a similar de facto tag for > > horizontal shafts, man_made=adit with 12,000 usages). > > A mineshaft is not a hazard if it is properly protected or capped or > whatever. So there is no need for a hazard tag in the majority of cases. > > As a result, the > > hazard key hasn't really been used for this -- there is a > > hazard=open_mineshaft with 5 usages, and a single use of > hazard=mineshaft. > > I'm not sure if all mine shafts are hazardous or only some of them, but > in > > any case, I would think that man_made=mineshaft + hazard=yes would make > > more sense than a a mineshaft-specific value. > > Well, that is better than nothing, but I don't see why a more specific > value is not useful. The hazard might be toxic effluent coming out of > a (probably disused) mineshaft. There are even cases where there can be > toxic fumes as the result of bacterial activity. > > For back ground, many of the open mineshafts in Cornwall come from the > long (even pre-historic) undocumented mining history. Many old shafts > were capped with timber supports that have since rotted away and shafts > suddenly appear unexpectedly. Other shafts are covered in undergrowth > and may have never been capped. Pets and people are regularly rescued > from such places. > > Adits are normally much less hazardous by virtue of being approximately > horizontal. Of course, if an inexperienced person chooses to enter then > they may well be exposed to many hazards, and maybe that could be tagged > as well, but apart from perhaps the risk of rock fall/collapse, I would > think tagging underground features is at least problematic in OSM. > > ael > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
